For several months, I have been anticipating the vision for Base31’s future —beyond promoting Talk or Matthew Good’s intentions at the Drill Hall. The answer is now here, or part of one. Renderings of a future Revitalization Area and draft plan for “Village A” were published last week (Picton Gazette, News, November 20). They depict the exclusionary suburbanization of Picton at an unprecedented scale.

Norm Li, the artist, is a highly respected architectural renderer who produces seductive visuals for developers, architects, and interior designers. His image of the “Revitalization District” with a new apartment building in the background is perfect artifice. Labelled “looking north,” it shows a physical impossibility: a bright sun directly bedazzles us. 

But who can resist the fictional narrative of the sun from the north pointing down on a lifestyle mall best suited to an upscale American suburb? Never mind that we are in Picton. One can only surmise what a $20 “farm-to-table” offering on a paper plate at the Commissary will cost once Villages B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K are complete, or when the “Revitalization District” sees the first Williams Sonoma open its doors in the County, selling $130 tins of peppermint bark just in time for Christmas.

The rendering, complete with fashionable stand-ins and expensive gelato, reminded me of the 1998 film The Truman Show, about Truman Burbank, a man unknowingly living inside a massive reality TV show where every aspect of his environment is controlled to maintain the illusion. In County-influencer social media feeds, there is no shortage of bearded microbrewery men serving up charcuterie boards or women wearing sundresses and wide-brimmed hats frolicking amidst lavender fields, drinking local wine. The Truman Show anticipated the consequences of a society obsessed with spectacle and voyeurism. Its relevance has only grown. 

We don’t deserve this Base31-commissioned illusion of reality.

Christopher Marchese, Development Manager at DECO homes, describes the first phase of Base31 development as “housing for all,” yet only 5 percent of the Revitalization District’s 120 rental apartments will be defined as “affordable.” The 600-800 units planned for Village A will offer a market-rate mix of detached, townhouses and condos. Clearly, we need to reconsider what “housing for all” is supposed to mean. 

Current political reality indicates that our provincial government is unwilling to increase levels of affordability at Base31, or its growing base of wealthy retirees and part-time County homeowners. The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement does not require affordable housing outside Major Transit Station Areas. The policy is designed for major cities like Toronto and Ottawa. Enforcing any form of Inclusionary Zoning (IZ), a land-use planning policy that requires or incentivizes developers like those at Base31 to include a certain percentage of affordable housing units within new residential developments, seems remote. IZ helps increase affordable housing supply, promote economic diversity, and combat spatial segregation of income groups. 

Base31’s offer to include the possibility of a minimum of 5 percent affordable housing is both insulting and non-binding. It may be satirical to suggest that Base31’s planned museum include an affordable housing unit as part of its permanent exhibition. Still, if the unit could be counted as part of the developers’ 5 percent quota, it is within the range of possibilities.

Base31 must create new housing inventory for the County with a greater income mix. The County Foundation’s 2024 Vital Signs report shows the average income in the County is 10 percent lower than in the rest of the province. Moreover, the County’s marginalization index has risen over the past decade, leaving more of us excluded from access to a host of public resources and opportunities. With a sharp drop in housing affordability and increased food insecurity (23 percent of households in the County experience food insecurity as opposed to 17.4 percent for all Ontarians), “Village A” is a model for exacerbating economic segregation.

We still do not know Village A’s approach to architectural design or any of the villages to follow, but the telltale signs are there: the marketing of gently curving roads and cutesy front porches with vehicular access at the back. Here is the New Urbanist development featured in countless North American suburbs for decades. Look no further than Markham, Brampton, Vaughan or St. Catherines for precedents. Likewise, the approach to the Village’s architecture will likely be overly prescriptive, marketing nostalgia. Think Disneyland, but with a sizable down payment and an SUV. Although the streets are touted as walkable, who will walk? Certainly not those dependent on public transit. That could be the point.

Forward-thinking urban designers work within the existing socioeconomic landscape to foster greater social cohesion, through policies like inclusionary zoning, affordable housing initiatives, public amenities, social services, and adequate employment opportunities. These principles achieve sustainable and liveable communities when combined with design flexibility, public transit integration, and mixed-income housing. 

Let’s hope the folks at Base31 sincerely think in these terms. We should not accept what is looking like the banal and exclusionary suburbanization of Picton.